Man w/down syndrome dies

[Chris0nllyn]

We do not even know if they attended the training.

Every sworn officer has to.

 

[vraiblonde]

My original statement was that the family would have a better chance suing the company the aide worked for. If the aide was following her training, then the company is at fault for not giving her adequate training. If the training was adequate, then they would still have to show that they weren't negligent in their supervision. If the company showed they met their obligations, then it would be the aide herself who was negligent, but as an employee the company would still be liable.

Very little is mentioned about the "aide". I suspect this is because said aide is really a friend or family member with zero training or skills who absolutely shouldn't have been in a position of responsibility for this man.

And no, Chrisarino, I do not know that for a fact. It is my gut instinct, which is usually pretty accurate and has rarely failed me in the past. In fact, I've lost count of the number of times I've said "I freaking told you so!" with regard to bogus spun up news stories.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Chrisarino

That's got a nice ring to it.

 

[MMDad]

Can we agree that the police training is and was meant to reduce the possibility of folks with mental disorders becoming an unintended victim?

No, there are two important distinctions. First, he did not have a mental disorder, he had a developmental disorder. Second, supposedly the training only discussed developmental disorders as far as recognizing someone had one so that they didn't mistake it for a mental disorder.

Since the picture in the article shows that this was someone who had the well defined features that are common to Down Syndrome, it would be safe to assume that the security guards knew what they were probably dealing with as soon as they saw him. Of course, they had no idea how severe his problems may have been other than his outward appearance.

I have two neices with Down Syndrome, and it is so mild you may not even notice. They also function on a par with the other kids their age, and do not need special treatment.

But there are also the cases where their brain and body are so affected that they cannot function, and may be crippled. The point is, even if the security guards recognized he had Down Syndrome they still had no way to know where in the spectrum he fell. They could not assess his mental state or physical condition based on sight alone.

That's where the aide comes in. The aide would have to know what his limitations and abilities were in order to prevent a situation like this from developing. Unless Vrai's hunch is correct and this wasn't really an "aide."

I generally dismiss the "desensitization" argument for violence in media, but this is a case where I wonder if it wasn't appropriate. He had just finished a movie that I assume is pretty violent. Was he wound up from that? Did it affect him more than someone without his disability? Could he separate the violence in the movie from the real world? Was it a good choice to even take him to this movie, much less leave him alone?

Those are rhetorical questions, but they are something to consider before jumping on the guards as if they just decided it would be a great day to kill someone.

 

[MMDad]

No different than what you are doing.

Except that you admitted that you are Penn.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

No, there are two important distinctions. First, he did not have a mental disorder, he had a developmental disorder. Second, supposedly the training only discussed developmental disorders as far as recognizing someone had one so that they didn't mistake it for a mental disorder.

Since the picture in the article shows that this was someone who had the well defined features that are common to Down Syndrome, it would be safe to assume that the security guards knew what they were probably dealing with as soon as they saw him. Of course, they had no idea how severe his problems may have been other than his outward appearance.

I have two neices with Down Syndrome, and it is so mild you may not even notice. They also function on a par with the other kids their age, and do not need special treatment.

But there are also the cases where their brain and body are so affected that they cannot function, and may be crippled. The point is, even if the security guards recognized he had Down Syndrome they still had no way to know where in the spectrum he fell. They could not assess his mental state or physical condition based on sight alone.

That's where the aide comes in. The aide would have to know what his limitations and abilities were in order to prevent a situation like this from developing. Unless Vrai's hunch is correct and this wasn't really an "aide."

I generally dismiss the "desensitization" argument for violence in media, but this is a case where I wonder if it wasn't appropriate. He had just finished a movie that I assume is pretty violent. Was he wound up from that? Did it affect him more than someone without his disability? Could he separate the violence in the movie from the real world? Was it a good choice to even take him to this movie, much less leave him alone?

Those are rhetorical questions, but they are something to consider before jumping on the guards as if they just decided it would be a great day to kill someone.

All good point, until the last part.

I don't know how many times it has to be said, but obviously you haven't been paying attention.

 

[itsrequired]

I don't think the police intended to kill him, or did anything on purpose.


Can you say they followed (not ignored) that training in this case if the guy died, and the training was meant to prevent that?

What exactly are you saying the police did wrong?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

What exactly are you saying the police did wrong?

A person died, via asphyxiation, while in cutody.

His death was ruled a homicide.

Is that a "right" police confrontation?

 

[thatguy]

Nice try but I have not. It is just your childish little game you wish to play so I will keep playing it back on you. I am glad you admitted you were Hank too.

no i didn't

 

[itsrequired]

A person died, via asphyxiation, while in cutody.

His death was ruled a homicide.

Is that a "right" police confrontation?

So is it you are saying the police did something wrong to cause the death?

 

[Lurk]

Actually, there is a good lesson to be learned from this. If you are responsible for someone with issues like he had, having someone close by who can control the situation would be a start. Maybe someone like an aide or something. You know, someone with the training it would take to diffuse the situation before the cops even got involved. Too bad there wasn't anyone with him when he needed it most, and now he's dead.

As I have watched this 'discussion' move forward, I have been of the opinion that (1) the absence of the familiar aide is probably what precipitated a agitated/violent response by the young man when the police arrived. But there is also (2) this young man had just watched a very violent and brutal movie that had to have been challenging for his mind to comprehend. Add to this (3) the usual darkness in a theater (even between showings) and the presence of three large men who could not be identified as official authorities to the young man and several issues culminated in his becoming difficult to manage.

Placement of a struggling subject in a "position of disadvantage" is SOP for police. Unfortunately, such a position was also life threatening (subsequently fatal) to this individual. The respiratory compromise could not have been anticipated. The confusion and unpredictability of the moment contributed to the eventual demise of the young man. The police were not at fault, the aide was not a fault, the theater is not a fault and neither was the young man.

 

[vraiblonde]

As I have watched this 'discussion' move forward, I have been of the opinion that (1) the absence of the familiar aide is probably what precipitated a agitated/violent response by the young man when the police arrived. But there is also (2) this young man had just watched a very violent and brutal movie that had to have been challenging for his mind to comprehend. Add to this (3) the usual darkness in a theater (even between showings) and the presence of three large men who could not be identified as official authorities to the young man and several issues culminated in his becoming difficult to manage.

Placement of a struggling subject in a "position of disadvantage" is SOP for police. Unfortunately, such a position was also life threatening (subsequently fatal) to this individual. The respiratory compromise could not have been anticipated. The confusion and unpredictability of the moment contributed to the eventual demise of the young man. The police were not at fault, the aide was not a fault, the theater is not a fault and neither was the young man.

Nice

But I still think the aide was negligent and shouldn't have left him alone.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

So is it you are saying the police did something wrong to cause the death?

Is it common to have people suffocate to death in police custody?

I know people do die in custody, but how many of their deaths are ruled a homicide?

 

[Lurk]

Nice

But I still think the aide was negligent and shouldn't have left him alone.

That may well be. Only she would know how docile or violent he might become in her absence. She could not predict they would try to bum's rush the kid out of the theater in her absence. She knew she had about 10-15 minutes before the previews and advertisements began for the next showing. She could not have predicted the outcome.

I am surprised nobody has asked how three police could show up in such a short time for a patron who wouldn't leave the theater. Denver cops are known for taking weeks to arrive at a home invasion or domestic violence call.

 

[Lurk]

Is it common to have people suffocate to death in police custody?

I know people do die in custody, but how many of their deaths are ruled a homicide?

There was a notorious case in Baltimore a few years ago in which a drug dealing low life hanged himself in a cell specifically built to allow observation by the guards. Yes, asphyxiation (or self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the head) are quite common in today's environment.

Can you explain to us your understanding of what Homicide means? Can you do the same for Murder?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

There was a notorious case in Baltimore a few years ago in which a drug dealing low life hanged himself in a cell specifically built to allow observation by the guards. Yes, asphyxiation (or self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the head) are quite common in today's environment.

Can you explain to us your understanding of what Homicide means? Can you do the same for Murder?

And how was his death ruled? Suicide?

Homicide is the act of killing another human being.

Murder is mearly criminal homicide. Other types of homicide are deadly force by police, and capital punishment. Both of those are excusable homicides.

 

[Bann]

If MY son* was being accompanied by an aide and something like this occurred, I would hold the aide and the aide's employer at fault.

That aide was serving as not only an assistant to this man, in some form or fashion, but also as his advocate. By ALL of the media accounts of this situation, he clearly could not advocate for himself, and she was not present to do so at a critical point in this entire situation. HAD SHE BEEN PRESENT, this situation would not have escalated out of control in the way it did.

*My son DOES receive some services from a company for which he has an aide. I will not detail those services here, for reasons of privacy. However, even though my son is very "high functioning", he is verbal & can do a lot of things for himself, he can still misunderstand AND have his actions be misunderstood very easily and this causes a lot of communication issues with others. Suffice to say that a situation similar to this (maybe not this exact scenario) could definitely occur in some fashion with my son, and I could see his behavior escalate out of control if he were unable to clearly communicate. I would hold the aide (AND their employer) responsible BEFORE I would hold anyone else responsible in this same type of situation.

 

[MMDad]

I know people do die in custody, but how many of their deaths are ruled a homicide?

You are mixing homicide and murder again. The word homicide does not imply intent or anything else. The only thing it means is that the death can be considered to be caused by the actions of another human.

If you defend yourself from a crazed madman with a gun who is about to kill you, it is still homicide.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

You are mixing homicide and murder again. The word homicide does not imply intent or anything else. The only thing it means is that the death can be considered to be caused by the actions of another human.

If you defend yourself from a crazed madman with a gun who is about to kill you, it is still homicide.

No, murder is homicide. Just criminal homicide.

Whether it be murder or homicide, it's still the act of a human killing another human.

 

[itsrequired]

• Not letting the aid intervene.
  
• Position the individual in such a way as to block his airway.
  
• Violating his 4th Amendment rights.
  
• Not understanding that the individual condition was not the same someone without a disability.

Even though this case is not equal, there is enough references in here that indicates that the security/officers could face charges since claiming that they are entitled to qualified immunity could be in question. The question of qualified immunity could even be harder for them, because they were acting as security guards, not law enforcement individuals that that moment. Or were they?

You are so full of it! You pull a case where one of the central arguments is that he officers pepper sprayed a handcuffed person who was not resisting any longer and make that about this.

Tell me exactly how you would handle a situation where you, as a police officer, (Maryland has already ruled that once an off duty police officer takes law enforcement action, they are considered to be on duty) handle a complaint from a business owner which tells you a person won't leave their theater or buy another ticket.